Why compositionality?

In Greg Carlson & J. Pelletier (eds.), Reference and Quantification: The Partee Effect. Stanford: CSLI Press. pp. 83-106 (2005)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

The paper identifies some background assumptions of compositionality in formal semantics and investigates how they shape formal semantics as a scientific discipline.

Categories

Keywords

Reprint years

Links

PhilArchive

External links

  • This entry has no external links. Add one.
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

My notes

Similar books and articles

Direct compositionality.Chris Barker & Pauline I. Jacobson (eds.) - 2007 - New York: Oxford University Press.
Compositionality II: Arguments and Problems.Peter Pagin & Dag Westerståhl - 2010 - Philosophy Compass 5 (3):265-282.
From compositional to systematic semantics.Wlodek Zadrozny - 1994 - Linguistics and Philosophy 17 (4):329 - 342.
How to Blunt the Sword of compositionality.Philip Robbins - 2002 - Noûs 36 (2):313-334.
Interpreted languages and compositionality.Marcus Kracht - 2011 - Dordrecht: Springer.
Red watermelons and large elephants: A case against compositionality?Mark Siebel - 2000 - Theoria 15 (38):263-280.
Why Compositionality?Jeroen Groenendijk & Martin Stokhof - 2005 - In Greg N. Carlson & Francis Jeffry Pelletier (eds.), Reference and Quantification: The Partee Effect. Stanford: CSLI Publications. pp. 83--106.

Analytics

Added to PP
2009-01-28

Downloads
118 (#148,158)

6 months
36 (#96,981)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Martin Stokhof
University of Amsterdam

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

References found in this work

No references found.

Add more references